Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday September 15, 2005 @07:03AM
from the do-your-homework dept.

Brett writes "Despite claims to the contrary, it now appears that Apple didn't do any serious investigation inside the
company before they sued AppleInsider and the PowerPage. This is quite a bit of a problem because Californian law and First Amendment precedent requires Apple check up on itself
before threatening journalists. From the article, "It appears that Apple has adopted a shoot-first, ask questions later approach to dealing with rumors sites. The company took no
depositions, required no oaths from its employees, and failed to subpoena anyone related to the company or the development of the device in question.""

I still don't get why people are so enamored with Apple. For every piece of FUD Microsoft spews, Apple tosses out a lawsuit.

People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market. If they had their way, everything would be text mode or Apple. No Windows, no X, no nothing. The only up shot to this I can think of is we'd have been spared the silly KDE vs GNOME battles. OF course that's because if Apple had their way, neither would exist.

They're no better than Microsoft, SUN or even SCO, but because they're considered an underdog in the hardware and OS wars, shenanigans like this are given a free pass.

What gives?

We're talking about a company who took until version TEN to have a decent OS, and still ships their laptops with one frigging mouse button, even though they cram as much functionality into the alternate mouse buttons as any Windows developer.

I think you are forgetting that Microsoft didn't have any GUI under development when Apple gave them Mac developer kits for them to write Office for the Mac.

So what? Do you really believe that Apple had the right to "copyright" items like overlapping windows?

Microsoft (filth tho they are) were IMO able to reimplement Apples GUI if they so chose.

Or do you believe that Apple should not be able to use items like tabbed dialogue boxes? (they appeared in windows first)

Apple had given Xerox shares in exchange for just a demo of what they had achieved at PARC.

Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple. [utexas.edu]

Choice quote from the article:

Xerox contends that such software should be licensed widely to encourage a single industry standard. But Apple has tried to prevent other companies from imitating its software, in an attempt to differentiate its products from those of competitors.

Microsoft did not give Apple or Xerox anything.

so what?I don't believe they should have - they didn't steal Apple's copyrighted code did they?

Apple are a great company - they make nice hardware, a reasonable Unix like system to run on it and are innovative in many ways.

But it doesn't mean we have to defend them when they're clearly wrong.

To a point. Clearly had the patent case gone differently I bet Apple would have done the UI differently. I'd note one big patent UI precedence though - Adobe's patents for movable tabs that one sees in say Photoshop but never in non-Adobe products.

Reference please. I see many Apple shills pulling this out, but it seems to be contradicted by Xerox sueing Apple.

The very link you provided contains the following statement: "Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings." More links. [google.com]

The very link you provided contains the following statement: "Mr. Jobs had been permitted to visit the Xerox laboratory in return for allowing Xerox to invest in one of Apple's last private financing offerings." More links.

OK - the statement as worded was correct in a legalistic sense. However, many take Apples share off to mean that Xerox ceded Apple all rights to their UI. This is simply not true - as the Xerox lawsuit link I provided shows.

Yeah, but that's just your opinion. I bought a Powerbook last summer to start playing with OSX. I just sold it a couple of months back and went back, happily, to XP. I couldn't stand their interface. No, let me clarify...the interface was nice, but I found it terribly difficult to use. Too mouse-centric, and considering the mouse is a PITA with its one button, that didn't work for me. It might be nice and simple for first time users and long time Mac users, b

Well, sometimes Apple is no better than some of the assholes that run/runed the company. For the sake of the people that live in the RDF: I'm not talking of Steve Jobs -many mistakes but good overall-.

Yes, some of this guys are control freaks, DRM-lovers, RIAA-bitches, that are no different than MS/SCO/SUN troops.

What IS different is the organizational culture of Apple and other companies. I believe it is better than Microsoft's, Sun's and, definitely, SCO's. That I like, and because of it Apple is capable of making great products not only because they want big profits but for the sake of doing things right.

Sometimes it seems that they are forced to do "Good Things", or that their intentions are not 'pure', like some interactions with the OS community.But look at their DRM strategy compared to M$. They looked at things from the user's perspective and tried to change the views of the RIAA to match the 'reality' of us. I don't think this was only motivated by profit but because Apple 'thinks different' than M$.

As for the case at hand: I don't think Apple should be suing those websites. They should plug their leaks.

What IS different is the organizational culture of Apple and other companies. I believe it is better than Microsoft's, Sun's and, definitely, SCO's. That I like, and because of it Apple is capable of making great products not only because they want big profits but for the sake of doing things right.

A friend of mine interviewed for some iPod special projects group at Apple. When asking for specifics about the position, he was told that he shouldn't care what he was working on as long as it was for Apple.

I would not call myself enamored with Apple, but I do see a distinction between them and Microsoft.

Apple is a small company, they have no monopoly in any market, and in the market where they are the strongest (iPod) they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer. They simply out-compete everyone else by producing a superior product (superior at least, in the definition of most consumers).

Microsoft on the other hand, has a monopoly in several markets, and exploits their position to maintain the monopoly at the expense of innovation, and ultimately the customer. Microsoft does not maintain their dominance in the market by producing a superior product (even the die-hard Microsoft apologists would conceed that point), they do it by force. Shady business practices, bastardization of standards, etc.

So yes, Apple pulls some stunts, like this one, which it should be criticized for. But to use this kind of misstep as an excuse for the absolutely unholy way Microsoft operates is to make a huge mathmatical mistake;-). Microsoft has several orders of magnitude more impact on societ than does Apple, and therefore Microsoft -has- to be held to even higher standards.

Apple is a small company, they have no monopoly in any market, and in the market where they are the strongest (iPod) they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer.

Then why can't I play songs purchased from iTunes on my Creative player?

Because iTunes is designed as an incentive for people to buy iPods.Predatory would be more along the lines of Creative suing Apple for using menus on its music player.

If you want to buy a Creative player, that's fine. You can do so, and use every online music provider that's not Apple--none of which will let themselves work on an iPod, either, I might add. Apple's not saying you can't play any music on your Creative player, just that you can't buy it from them in particular.

they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer.

Then why can't I play songs purchased from iTunes on my Creative player?

Same reason you can't see AIM buddies on your yahoo IM tool. Apple *created* their own network (iTunes). It's theirs to use. No other company has the RIGHT to inherently have their products work with with it. Compare and contrast this with Microsoft who has repeatedly *actively sabotaged* other companies' products from working with their system, especially when that system was pre-existing and open (hint: microsoft.com sent bad headers toOpera browsers).

Both Apple and Microsoft are evil to some degree, but the depth of their evil is entire leagues apart.

"and in the market where they are the strongest (iPod) they do not show a tendency to prey on other manufacturers at the expense of the customer."

They prevent other companies from providing iTunes compatible hardware, and they prevent other companies from providing iPod compatible software. This is preying on other manufacturors at the expense of the customer. Note that I don't deny they have a right to do this, but they clearly do it.

No, it's not OK. But the reality is that if you are going to be a jerk, people are far more likely to tolerate you and make excuses for you if you produce something they appreciate and find important, than if you don't.

So I guess the lesson is, don't be a jerk if you don't have to. If you can't help it, at least have some redeeming qualities.

Your post does read a lot like a troll.In my house I happen to have two documents - one is the instruction manual that came with an Apple//gs. The other is the instruction manual that came with Windows 1.0.

Anyone with half a brain can flip through both books, look at screenshots, and realize that they are almost identical. This is not a "KDE copies the Windows UI", this is "Wow, if I had not looked at the cover of the book, I would not be able to identify some of these screenshots correctly."

Except that Apple did *not* sue for Windows 1.0, because this version had non-overlapping windows, precisely as the Apple-Microsoft GUI agreement said.Apple sued for Windows 2.0, which did have overlapping windows, and had broadly similar look-and-feel as the Macintosh GUI.

BTW Apple threw away lots of creds for this stupid move and haven't quite recovered. It should be a lesson for all, no matter what your behaviour later on, one really stupid & evil move does stick, and for a long time, as this thread

Apple Good! Apple Bad! These/. people are having trouble making up their mind.

Microsoft, by concentrating on software, helped build an industry of interchangable hardware and software. They are to thank for low cost, reliable (mostly) PC components. Even Apple has benefited from the technology, leveraging low-cost chipsets for disk drives, USB, keyboard and mouse controllers, etc.

Apple, on the other hand, wants to control everything--hardware and software. If it were feasable, everything would be propr

You;re suffering form a common delusion.You seem to think that your impression of the prevailing/. opinion on a topic is the opinion that all/. readers and posters should have.

I, as an individual, am not being inconsistent.

I think Apple products are largely dumbed down and lame. I think they're a collection of jerks who wanted to be monopolists, but didn't have the business savvy in the 1980's to pull it off, and have been culturing an underdog, hippie image ever since.

People root for Apple because they're tired of a Microsoft world. Even I think the world would be much better if the market were 50/50 Microsoft/Apple.I don't want Apple to completely take over. I just want there to be real, solid competition. The sort of competition that drives real innovation, and keeps developers from only working with on platform because it is "dominant".

I want Apple and Microsoft to outright go to war. Bloody, no-holds-barred war. When this happens, we win; neither company will try fun

So, if Apple does so many things right, develops a new industry, has one of the most successful product in history, creates a killer OS, becomes a top global brand, sparks their performances, sales, and stocks, and makes the whole Valley jealous -- that's apparently talked about too much by your standards.However, if Apple makes a legal mistake, that should be the topic of conversation?

People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market.

They sued because Microsoft had made an agreement with them about what they were going to do with Windows. Then Microsoft decided the agreement meant one thing, Apple decided it meant another, and the judge sided with Microsoft.

It was Xerox who sued over whether anyone else could have a GUI. Because, after all, they did invent it. The judge said 'you idiots, you waited too long' and that was the end of it.

We're talking about a company who took until version TEN to have a decent OS

True. But so what. It's now the best OS out there. Do you tell people you meet "it took 3.5 billion yours for you to evolve so clearly you are a crap person?" Before OSX Apple was in a rut producing second rate products. The company reinvented itself. It seems wrong to hold its past against it, just as I no longer joke about the BSOD now that MS have had a stable OS since 2000.

People forget that Apple sued Microsoft to keep non Apple GUIS off the market. If they had their way, everything would be text mode or Apple. No Windows, no X, no nothing.

See? Now that is what we call FUD, in case you wondered. They sued because of certain similarities in the GUI. And they sued because they had a contract with MS, of which Apple thought MS would have viola

"no one can deny the build quality and attention to detail that goes into Apple hardware"

Well, yes, that's what a lot of us, many of us Apple users, do deny. We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components. We don't even see in general better cooled or quieter cases.

And if you think failure rates and quality problems are any different, read Ars Technica. They just are not.

It would be lovely if it were different, especially for us users, but the facts are alas not so.

Well, yes, that's what a lot of us, many of us Apple users, do deny. We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components. We don't even see in general better cooled or quieter cases.

You're correct, there is very little difference in this so called 'Apple hardware' especially given the manufacturers are not in fact Apple, but Asustek and Quanta [macworld.co.uk] - the former outselling their own so called 'PC' laptops to Apple branded computers 10 to 1.

It is largely a well propogated myth that 'Apple hardware' is in any way better than that of other brands and there can certainly be no real claim of innovation in the industrial design department outside of superficial stylistic impositions on case and chassis design. Where cooling is concerned it can safely be said that the powerbooks are perhaps the most poorly designed of any portable's I've come across; many colleagues in fact prop their's up on a book just to allow for air to circulate underneath the thing.

Well, yes, that's what a lot of us, many of us Apple users, do deny. We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components. We don't even see in general better cooled or quieter cases.

What bullshit. Up until the Dell reference I saw your point, but you cannot tell me that a G5 c

I'm largely talking about laptops. That said the G5 tower I was working with heavily until recently was well laid out but certainly nothing special where componentry is concerned - anyone that has actually built their own PC tower from parts can open up a G5 tower and tell you that. They'll also tell you it does look fantastic from the outside. This said IBM's G5 PPC chip is where the real appeal lies.

Apple makes a brand, not hardware, and a very good brand at that. Don't imagine a plant in Cupertino, ra

"We have opened the cases, and looked at what's in them, and we just do not see it. We see the same drives, opticals, memory, psus, graphics cards as in our Dell boxes. We see main boards manufactured by, I think, Asus. We don't see any particularly wonderful layout of the components."

I'm not talking about the guts. Apple isn't a hard drive manufacturer any more than they are a cpu manufacturer. I was refering to the quality and thought that they put into thier computer cases, laptop shells, keyboards, etc. You pick up a PowerBook and it has a high quality feel, like it's put together better than PC laptops. It's like old cast iron hand tools that you used to get in the 40's compared to the crap they make today, it's all about the "feel".

I agree, Apple is worse than MS in many ways. The only reason why it isn't so apparent is their complete lack of market share.

Probably true. Don't get me wrong, my first computer was a IIe and I love my iBook, and I respect a lot of their company's values, but they're not flawless. I suspect a major reason they don't get called on it is that they're not really in a position to do nearly as much damage as Microsoft. It's the difference between being threatened with bodily harm by Richard Simmons instead of

The summary is very conclusive that Apple failed to do something required by law. Though from TFA:

"The First Amendment requires that compelled disclosure from journalists be a last resort," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Apple must first investigate its own house before seeking to disturb the freedom of the press."

Is the only source of this information in the summary this quote from an attorney working against Apple? If so, something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact.

Especially the part about him being a journalist! That's contested by Apple and others. And the most interesting part of this case: Is any random guy with a webpage a journalist with the right to protect his sources (he can allways keep quiet, but if he's not a journalist he'll get in trouble).

So this is more like an attempt by his attorney to establish as a fact that he's a journalist.

That's one of the decisions I hope will fall out from all this. If J. Random Busybody happens to find out something covered by an NDA, can he just buy a domain name, throw up a web page with that information and claim "Hey, I'm a journalist, I don't have to tell you anything!"? Hopefully not, but how long do you have to have a web site up before you become recognized as a journalist? Is there some specific kind of content you have to include (editorials?), or some specific disclaimer? Does your site hav

Articles from the register [theregister.co.uk] and many others [google.com] make it sound more like EFF had court documents unsealed that show Apple's lack of dilligence.

From the reg article:

Apple's legal eagles failed to take depositions or subpoena its own employees, and didn't examine telephone records or individuals' computers. It made only a cursory examination of a single email server. The testimony was provided by Robin Zonic and Al Ortiz, senior manager of investigations, and senior investigator in the corporate security department at Apple....

Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.

Seriously - I really don't understand why the Apple Fans are defending Apple on this one. Apple crossed the line of reasonableness here, defending them means you've crossed the line from fan to shill.

I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one. The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.

I haven't seen a single person defend Apple on this one.Here you go [slashdot.org] The poster you just called a "shill" was merely pointing out that it's not established that Apple has legally failed to undertake due diligence. That's for a judge or jury to decide, *not* the legal opposition.

No. The OP tried to make the entire summary sound incorrect.

Despite claims to the contrary, it now appears that Apple didn't do any serious investigation inside the company before they sued AppleInsider and the PowerPage

Is the only source of this information in the summary this quote from an attorney working against Apple? If so, something stated by an opposing attoreny in the middle of a case shouldn't be taken as settled fact.

Exactly. My understanding of the law is that Apple must first exhaust all reasonable alternatives, not all alternatives. The EFF seems to want to claim that deposing up to all employees would have been reasonable; Apple disagrees.

The article is not based on any decision made by a judge, it is based on what the opposing lawyers say. It is not even based on the _opinion_ of the opposing lawyers (which they might be very wise to keep to themselves), but on their interpretation that is most helpful to their clients.

It would be interesting to see what Apple's lawyers think about it. Maybe, just maybe, they have a slightly different point of few. Maybe they don't quite agree that the victim of a crime has to shoulder all the cost and hardship of the investigation.

In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.

If this wasn't the case, you would have companies making sweeping allegations and suing with no evidence. But no company [wikipedia.org] would ever do that, would they?

I don't care what Apple's lawyers think. As far as I'm concerned they should be up against the wall by now.The story is that the judge unsealed the documents, and those documents show that Apple didn't fulfil its obligations to investigate internally FIRST. Besides, this is the EFF, they usually pick their causes well. I trust their legal actions much more than any corporations, because they're not out just to make money, they're here to protect people's rights.

Sitting in a different jurisdiction, knowing little about U.S. law, I find myself asking: So all it takes for a U.S. corporation to compel a journalist (or anybody else) to reveal his source is that they conduct an internal investigation?

I understand we are talking about the First Amendment here, about fundamental civil rights. You should be able to talk to the press and trust them not to reveal their source unless some action of your o

This is a little different than a lot of First Amendment cases in that the information the journalist obtained was simply trade secrets. While I think First Amendment rights are extremely important, I don't see protecting the source of a trade secret in the same light as, say, protecting a whistle blower who tips off a journalist to illegal or morally corrupt behavior.If you obtained trade secrets under an NDA, you do NOT have the right to tell those to a journalist at all. If a company can prove that it

Thats the nice thing about taking depositions... once you do that, if you eventually uncover the mole they've now committed an extra crime. This can help to put fear into the mole, and maybe make them think twice about continuing to expose information.

When the story first broke that apple was sueing rumor sites I withheld judgement, you see I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist, I also understand the letters NDA, and what they mean to a company, and what they mean to me when I sign one. I do feel that as a journalist I have protections given to me by the US constitution protecting me and everyone for that matter from persecution and prosocution as a result of what I write.

That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company. We need to recognize that we do have great freedoms and powers in the press but that we need to make sure we use those powers and freedoms responsibly, for example not outing a CIA agent that isn't doing anything more then her job, that isn't say stealing from the Repbulican National Convention headquarters, but is making our country a safer place. You know that thing we refer to as common sense.

We as a society also need to infer and compel in to people that when they make a resonable agreement with someone be it a company or other individual or institution, they need to be held to that agreement, meaning if employee's of apple did disclose information about an upcomming product and had signed an NDA, and the upcomming product was not part of a large and publicly damaging scandal they had no right to reveal that information to a third party, and thusly the third party doesn't have the right (even under freedom of the press / speech) to reveal that information to the public.

That being said it also needs to be aknowlaged that there have to be some checks and balances in the system that allow companies to protect information that if released early could damage the company.

Yes, balances are lacking in a lot of ways. The other side of the coin is that in this industry, everything is under NDA. When I accept employment, I have to sign a paper that says basically my employer owns everything that crosses my mind, and I can't talk to anyone about anything that the company owns. E

I run a review site, I understand the dynamics of the tech industry and the vital role of a journalist

You certainly do. It's spelt "suing", not "sueing"; "prosecution", not "prosocution"; "acknowledged", not "aknowlaged"; "Republican", not "Repbulican"; "reasonable", not "resonable"; and "upcoming", not "upcomming". Also, proper nouns tend to start with a capital letter, and apostrophes aren't used for plurals. You need more commas too.

Not that apple shouldn't have done checks at home, but given the fact that most employees are aware that they can be easily monitored under company premises (especially when working on a secretive stuff), most of such sources would typically NOT use company resources, so it doesn't make much sense to search them.

Instead ask the "journalist" himself.

Again, Apple SHOULD have done checks at home, just to be on the safe side of law at least.

If I was working at Apple (I don't) intending to leak secrets (which I wouldn't), and knew that they monitored everything, but never looked at those monitors to see what happened, you bet I'd use company resources to leak things. When I send something from an anonymous source, I'm not trustworthy. Anyone can say anything, if I can make my leaks come from apple, I'm not just anyone, I'm clearly an Apple insider, and thus more trustworthy.

Apple did introduce a great product in Ipod, proving that usability and industrial design can help corner a market. And the tie in to itunes was an excellent idea from the perspective of locking in a market. Furthermore the inability of ipod to understand any DRM other than Fairplay means taht any musician who wants to sell music and have it be portable while having DRM must sell via itunes. These are all great ways to sell a product, and "bring portable music to the masses."History is full of great but evi

We don't even want to know about the details. We forgive them anyway. But deep down inside we know that they are not really at fault or it was just an honest mistake. And I'm almost sure MS has something to do with this.

Rumors don't come from nowhere. What if all Apple needs to accomplish
is to intimdidate a few talkative employees? They don't have to win
a lawsuit to demonstrate that they mean business, just bring a suit to
court. And consider the other costs of "due diligence": if they have to
go from cube to cube with a polygraph, they are going to alienate a lot
of their own people. "Shoot first and ask questions later" can work OK if you only mean to fire warning shots.

Did anyone stop and think that it was more of a scare tactic than anything else? I for one can't sit here and actually believe that the lawyers for the fastest growing computer company in the world has inept lawyers.

My guess is they did it to scare the people who were leaking, just to prove that they CAN do something, without actually DOING something.

This is quite a bit of a problem because Californian law and First Amendment precedent requires Apple check up on itself before threatening journalists.

This is clearly wrong. The law requires nothing for a lawsuit but an allegation. Most companies actually get the desired result from these kind of lawsuits because the defendent doesn't have the money to fight it. The only way you can recover your money from the plaintif is if you can prove the plaintif knew the lawsuit was bogus, but judges rarely (mea

But does it make them any different from an ethical point of view? We trash MS a lot for tossing its weight around with trademarks and filing for silly patents, but here we have a direct competitor who blindly fires off an illegitimate lawsuit against free speech journalism. In essense, wasn't Apple just trying to throw its weight around as well just like MS would do?

Not to sound like a fanboy, but this what is attractive about Linux. There's no organization, good or bad, that I'm directly supporting by using it as my computer OS. Trust me, I think Tiger might be the best user-centric OS by miles, but Apple as the market leader would frighten me just as much as MS as the market leader and as such, I don't buy their products.

It seems like Linus (or his lawyers rather) want to protect the Linux trademark. Hypthetically speaking, if I had a product titled Lunix Utilities, I wouldn't seem to fall under that trademark use. However, if my company or product name was MikeRoweSoft [cnn.com] or Lindows [internetnews.com], Microsoft could and would sue me.

*Shrug* It's a pretty hairy issue. I see where Linus or his lawyers are coming from, but I wonder why the demand in monetary payment in order to ensure their trademark isn't abused.

Linus went on to underscore the fact that policing trademarks is not a method of making money, quite the opposite due to Lawyer fees, "not only do I not get a cent of the trademark money, but even LMI (who actually administers the mark) has so far historically always lost money on it."

At the risk of sounding like an apologist, Apple's actions make perfect sense here. There was no need to find out who leaked the information since it was about a product that never existed in the first place. It was safe to assume that the information didn't come from within the company or, if it did, there was no way to determine who would have had access to the "information" as it was all fictional anyway.The obvious question is then, "Why start a lawsuit over a story about a product that never existed?"

"IANAL, but I would've thought that the court/judge should have verified that Apple "thoroughly" investigated it's staff in-house, before violating the journalist's freedoms. After all, if any one could just show up in court and say: "Looky here judge, it's like i say it is, y'hear?" then there wouldn't be much of a judicial process, would there... But please correct me if i'm wrong... "You're welcome.

Apple went to the court and asked the judge: "Please make these journalists tell who leaked our trade secre